ASIC Regulatory Guide 234, Advertising financial products and services (including credit), is ASIC's guidance for promoters of financial products, financial advice services, credit products and credit services, and for publishers of their advertising, on meeting the legal obligation not to make false or misleading statements or engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. ASIC issued the current version on 9 June 2026. The obligations themselves sit in the ASIC Act 2001 and the Corporations Act 2001, and ASIC enforces them in court: in July 2026 the Federal Court ordered Harvey Norman and Latitude to pay combined penalties of A$55 million over an interest-free advertising campaign.
What ASIC RG 234 Covers, and Who It Applies To
RG 234 applies to anyone who promotes a financial product, a financial advice service, a credit product or a credit service, and to anyone who publishes advertising for them. ASIC's RG 234 page describes the guide as guidance to help promoters comply with their legal obligations not to make false or misleading statements or engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. ASIC's own list of financial products includes shares, bonds, superannuation, interests in managed investment schemes, life insurance, general insurance, derivatives and margin lending facilities. The full guide is a PDF on ASIC's RG 234 page; this article draws on ASIC's web pages and information sheets.
What changed in ASIC's latest RG 234 update?
ASIC's 9 June 2026 update added guidance that reflects its enforcement and regulatory action on advertising since RG 234 was first published in 2012, and brought all of ASIC's advertising guidance into one place. ASIC consolidated the guidance from Regulatory Guide 53, The use of past performance in promotional material, into RG 234 and withdrew RG 53. The update followed consultation CS 37, which ran from 27 November 2025 to 22 January 2026 and drew 17 non-confidential submissions.
Which laws sit behind RG 234?
RG 234 explains how ASIC applies the general prohibitions on false or misleading statements and misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial products and services, found in sections 1041E, 1041G and 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 and sections 12DA and 12DB of the ASIC Act 2001. ASIC's information sheet INFO 271 names those sections and adds a point that matters for marketing copy: a representation about a future matter, such as a target or a forecast, risks being deemed misleading when the business has no reasonable grounds for it (section 769C of the Corporations Act and section 12BB of the ASIC Act). ASIC's information sheet for online content states that a business or person does not need a licence to breach the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions.
Do you need an AFS licence to promote financial products?
A business that runs a financial services business generally needs to be authorised under an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, and ASIC lists giving financial product advice and dealing in a financial product among the financial services that trigger it. ASIC's licensing page notes exemptions, limited AFS licences and acting as a licensee's authorised representative. Promotion carries licensing risk in two ways, in ASIC's online-content guidance: content that conveys a recommendation is likely to be financial product advice, and promoting a unique, paid link to a licensee's trading platform is likely to be dealing by arranging. Carrying on a financial services business without an AFS licence is an offence under the Corporations Act, unless an authorisation or exemption applies, and ASIC states that the penalties include up to five years' imprisonment for an individual and financial penalties into the millions of dollars for a corporation.
What penalties has ASIC obtained for misleading financial advertising?
ASIC's recent cases run from a A$19,800 infringement notice over a single website claim to a combined A$55 million in court penalties over a national campaign. On 28 July 2026 the Federal Court ordered Harvey Norman and Latitude, in ASIC media release 26-171MR, to pay A$35 million and A$20 million over advertisements for a 60-month interest-free, no-deposit payment method, which ASIC said masked that consumers had to take out a credit card and pay monthly account service fees; the Court also ordered corrective advertising on both companies' website home pages for 90 days. On 17 September 2026 Fundo Loans paid a A$19,800 infringement notice over a "no credit check loans" claim on its website, which ASIC alleged was misleading because applicants had to consent to a credit check; payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of liability. In September 2024 the Federal Court ordered Vanguard Investments Australia to pay A$12.9 million for misleading claims about the ESG screens applied to one of its funds.
General guidance, not legal advice.
What RG 234 Means for Your Marketing and SEO Copy
Every product page, rate table, meta description and social post that promotes a financial product or credit service is promotional material, so each one carries the misleading-conduct obligations RG 234 explains. The table maps common financial search-copy claims to ASIC's published statements.
| Claim type | What ASIC says | What to check | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Guaranteed" or "risk-free" returns | A statement that a class of products gives a guaranteed positive return, or that trading is risk-free, is likely to be misleading | Headlines, meta descriptions, ad copy and answer blocks | ASIC, INFO 269 |
| Benefits without risks | A statement that mentions risks and benefits with similar prominence is unlikely to mislead; one that implies safety without explaining risks is likely to | Each benefit sentence sits beside its risk, at the same prominence | ASIC, INFO 269 |
| Forecasts, targets and predictions | A prediction about a future return or level of risk needs reasonable grounds; without them, a representation about a future matter risks being deemed misleading | Evidence on file for every forecast, target and projection | ASIC, INFO 269; INFO 271 |
| Headline claims and qualifications | ASIC's guidance calls for a headline that does not itself mislead; qualifications do not repair an otherwise misleading overall impression, and the more a headline needs qualifying, the more prominent the qualification | Headline, sub-heading and qualification read together on first view | ASIC, INFO 271 |
| "See the PDS" and links elsewhere | Referring the reader to another webpage or document is not necessarily enough to correct a misleading impression, and promotional content stays consistent with disclosure documents | Landing page copy against the current PDS or terms | ASIC, INFO 271 |
| Key credit features | ASIC issued an infringement notice over a "no credit check loans" claim where applicants had to consent to a credit check | Eligibility, credit check and approval claims | ASIC, 26-224MR |
| "Interest free" and total cost | ASIC's A$55 million case concerned ads that masked a required credit card and its fees | Every fee and condition that comes with the offer | ASIC, 26-171MR |
| Sustainability and ethical labels | A product label reflects the product's substance; terms such as "socially responsible", "ethical investing" and "impact investing" are explained; absolute claims sit badly with threshold-based screens | Fund names, ESG claims and exclusion statements against the actual screens | ASIC, INFO 271 |
| Influencer and affiliate content | Paid comment on financial products is more likely to be financial product advice, and licensees face liability for misconduct by the influencers they use | Influencer briefs, affiliate links and disclosure of payments | ASIC, INFO 269 |
Sources: ASIC, INFO 269 Discussing financial products and services online, March 2022; ASIC, INFO 271 How to avoid greenwashing when offering or promoting sustainability-related products, updated March 2026; ASIC media releases 26-224MR (21 September 2026) and 26-171MR (28 July 2026). All checked 24 October 2026.
How do disclaimers and fine print work in financial ads?
ASIC's guidance, set out in its greenwashing information sheet with a pointer to RG 234 for more, calls for a headline claim that does not itself mislead; exceptions and qualifications do not repair an otherwise misleading overall impression. ASIC accepts that a headline will not always carry all the necessary information, but the more a qualification is needed to balance the headline, the more prominently it sits. A sentence that sends the reader to another website, webpage or document, such as a product disclosure statement, is not necessarily enough to correct a misleading or deceptive impression. ASIC's example: a fund that says "we do not invest in tobacco" while its screen allows holdings below a revenue threshold is likely to mislead, and disclosure does not fix it.
What counts as financial product advice in online content?
ASIC treats a recommendation or statement of opinion intended to influence a person's decision about financial products, or one that reasonably reads as intended to influence it, as financial product advice. In ASIC's online-content information sheet, factual information about the features or terms of a product does not count as advice on its own, but presenting those facts in a way that conveys a recommendation to invest, or not to invest, does. Payment or other benefits for the content make it more likely to be advice, because they indicate an intention to influence the audience.
What does ASIC expect from licensees who use influencers?
ASIC expects AFS licensees who use influencers to do their due diligence, monitor what the influencers publish and resource that monitoring, because licensees face liability for the influencers' misconduct. An influencer who acts on a licensee's behalf is the licensee's representative under the financial services laws, which brings further obligations, including training. Licensees put risk management systems and monitoring in place to stop influencers providing unlicensed financial services. Where the product is subject to the design and distribution obligations, ASIC asks licensees to consider whether they have taken reasonable steps so the influencer promotes it only to consumers in the target market.
General guidance, not legal advice.
What RG 234 Means for AI Answers and AI-Generated Content
Copy drafted with an AI tool meets the same misleading-conduct tests as any other financial promotion once your business publishes it, because ASIC judges the overall impression content creates, whatever the intention behind it. ASIC states that it does not matter whether the author intends to mislead: what counts is the overall impression the content creates when viewed, for the audience it actually reaches. In Aemorph's reading, the drafting tool does not change that test.
Is AI-drafted financial copy held to a different standard?
No: a statement drafted by an AI tool is held to ASIC's standard for any statement, which is that it is true, accurate and able to be substantiated. The risk words on ASIC's examples list, "guaranteed", "risk-free" and "just like depositing your money with a bank", are the words generated copy produces easily, so they belong on the review list for every draft. ASIC's report REP 798, released on 29 October 2024, reviewed how 23 AFS and credit licensees use and plan to use artificial intelligence and how they govern the consumer risks.
What do AI assistants repeat about a financial brand?
In Aemorph's working model, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity describe a financial brand from the public sources they find, your own pages and profiles among them, so an outdated rate or an unqualified claim on your site becomes material for their answers. The free Hallucination Report compares what the AI engines say about your business with what your website currently says, and flags where they conflict.
General guidance, not legal advice.
How Aemorph Checks Financial Claims Before Publication
Aemorph checks every financial and insurance claim for two things before it publishes: disclaimers are present, and no statement promises a financial outcome; your nominated point of contact then signs off every regulated claim. Aemorph is not a law firm. It does not review your copy against RG 234, the ASIC Act or the Corporations Act, and it does not confirm that any advertisement complies: as the promoter, your business holds those obligations. ASIC's information sheets state that they are no substitute for professional advice.
| Check | Applies to | Standard | Checked against | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial and insurance claims | Financial services and insurance clients | Disclaimers present, no guaranteed outcomes | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Licence and authorisation statements | Every Australian financial services client | The copy repeats the licence details your business supplies | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Testimonials | Every regulated vertical | Used only where the law permits | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Every regulated claim | Every client | Approved by the person your business nominates | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before Aemorph publishes |
Source: Aemorph compliance practice, October 2026.
Who signs off the claims on your pages?
You decide who signs off: the business owner, the chief marketing officer or the risk and compliance team. Aemorph publishes a regulated claim only after that person approves it, and the facts in your verified record are the facts your business supplies and approves. Inside the Showstopper Sensor (Sprint 1), a 30-day showstopper-answer sprint for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, the same sign-off covers the showstopper answers before they go live. The ACCC and Australian Consumer Law guide covers the consumer law rules that apply to the rest of your marketing.
General guidance, not legal advice.
Financial Services Brands: Start With a Free Strategic Conversation
Australian financial services and insurance brands that want search and AI visibility built on claims their own compliance reviewers have approved start with a free strategic conversation with Aemorph. Aemorph is headquartered in Singapore, serves Australian clients remotely in Australian business hours and replies to every message within 24 hours. The financial services page sets out how Aemorph runs SEO, AEO and GEO for financial services and insurance brands, with BizCover, the Sydney insurance broker platform, as the Australian reference.
Disclaimer: This article reflects Aemorph's reading and understanding of the laws, regulations and official guidance cited, based on the sources and review dates stated. It provides general information, not legal advice, and does not assess compliance for your specific circumstances.